Democracy double: Harper government takes twin blows for defying Parliament

The Harper government has been dealt a double rebuke over its disregard for the rights of MPs and the principles of parliamentary democracy.

The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled Wednesday that the government breached the privilege of Parliament on two matters: its handling of the Oda affair and its refusal to come clean on the costs of corporate tax cuts and its tough-on-crime agenda.

The twin rulings mark the third time Peter Milliken has found the Conservatives to have breached parliamentary privilege. He ruled last year that the government was in breach over its refusal to let MPs see all documents pertaining to the alleged torture of Afghan detainees.

Parliamentary procedure expert Ned Franks said no government in Canadian history has been cited so many times for ignoring the rights of Parliament. He offered two possible explanations.

“(The rulings) suggest, to put it kindly, that the government is, at a minimum, ignorant of the rules and principles governing parliamentary democracy and, to put it unkindly, that they don’t give a damn and they’ll try to get away with what they can.”

However, Government House Leader John Baird suggested the unprecedented series of rulings is simply the product of opposition games during five years of minority government. He said majority governments have not been challenged by MPs to disclose cabinet confidences or documents that could jeopardize national security.

Milliken ruled that International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda breached parliamentary privilege by misleading MPs about the alteration of a document. He did not rule on whether her action was deliberate, as opposition parties have charged.

He also found that the government breached parliamentary privilege by refusing to provide all documents requested by the Commons finance committee on the cost of corporate tax cuts and justice initiatives such as the expansion of prisons. The government has refused to disclose the full price tags, arguing they constitute cabinet confidences.

It’s now up to the Commons procedures and House affairs committee to decide what action to take against Oda and the government. That could include finding them in contempt of Parliament, which could carry heavy penalties, including suspension from Parliament — or theoretically even jail time.

The committee is to report back to Parliament on the cost issue by March 21 — one day before the federal budget — and on the Oda affair by March 25.

That timing guarantees the twin controversies will be front and centre at the same time as the budget, which could yet topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority government and plunge the country into an election.

There was one glimmer of good news for the Tories. Some Liberals had been musing about the possibility of using the Speaker’s rulings as a pretext for a confidence motion that could topple the government before the budget. That option died Wednesday after Milliken advised them he’d rule such an attempt out of order.

However, the Liberals could still try to defeat the government the day before the budget, using a possible opposition day motion or a vote on an unrelated money bill. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party is keeping “all options open.”

Whenever an election comes, Ignatieff signalled Milliken’s rulings will play a key part in the Liberal campaign against Harper.

“These are very clear and crushing judgments. They make it clear that this Speaker believes this government does not respect the democratic principles at the heart of our democracy.”

He said Liberals will urge voters to ask themselves two questions about Harper: “Can you trust him with power? Can you trust him to respect the institutions that keep us free?”

Milliken also stopped the Liberals from trying to move an immediate motion to find Oda in contempt and suspend her until such time as she “appears at the bar of the House to purge her contempt by apologizing.”

Oda later reminded the Commons that she has already apologized.

“Let me be clear that I stand by that statement,” she said. “I believe that I have been clear. I accept the ruling and look forward to providing all the clarity needed, truthfully and respectfully, at committee.”

Opposition parties had argued that Oda lied when she told MPs she didn’t know who altered a document that killed funding to the church-based foreign aid group Kairos.

The Canadian International Development Agency cut off funding to the group in 2009. Initially, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told an Israeli audience that Kairos was cut off due to its hostile views on Israel. Oda and CIDA officials contradicted Kenney, saying Kairos no longer matched the agency’s funding priorities.

But then an internal memo came to light late last year in which CIDA’s top two officials recommended funding for Kairos. However, someone had inserted the word “not” into the memo.

At a Commons committee, Oda repeatedly maintained she didn’t know who had altered the memo. That earned her a stinging rebuke last month from Milliken.

“Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked, and might well begin to doubt the integrity of certain decision-making processes,” he said at the time.

“In particular, the senior CIDA officials concerned must be deeply disturbed by the doctored document they have been made to appear to have signed.”

Oda subsequently admitted that she directed an unnamed aide to alter the document and that she had overruled the recommendation of her officials. She also apologized in the Commons for what she described as unintentional confuson.

Milliken ruled Wednesday that sufficient confusion persists over exactly what transpired to warrant a finding of breach of privilege against Oda and further airing of the matter at committee.

In the case of the cost estimates, the government did release some information, but not all the documents requested.

Milliken said the right of Parliament to call for documents is absolute and without limit. He said a “cursory examination” of the material tabled by the government showed all the information ordered by committee had not been provided.

“While the chair finds this, in an of itself, unsettling, what is of greater concern is the absence of an explanation for the omissions,” he said.

Milliken added that “the circumstances must be exceptional and the reasons very cogent” to withold documents.

“There is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.”

Baird interpreted Milliken’s ruling to mean the government could either hand over more information or provide better reasons for witholding it.

“So we will do one of those two things.”